- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-491/19: Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Vodafone Group and Others v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0491
62019TN0491
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
16.9.2019
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 312/32
(Case T-491/19)
(2019/C 312/27)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicants: Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom), Vodafone Consolidated Holdings Ltd (Newbury), Vodafone Finance UK Ltd (Newbury) and Vodafone Jersey Dollar Holdings Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: J. Gardiner, QC, I. Taylor, M. Lane and J. Holland, Solicitors)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—annul in whole or in part the Commission’s decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 in case SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;
—in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state adequate reasons and has erred in law by finding that the controlled foreign companies (CFC) rules are the relevant reference system.
2.Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in fact and in law and has failed to state adequate reasons in finding that the group financing exemption (GFE) constitutes a derogation.
3.Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment and has failed to state adequate reasons in finding that the GFE, in so far as it relates to UK significant people functions, is not justified and therefore is selective.
4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law and in fact and has failed to provide reasons in finding that the GFE constitutes an advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.
5.Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law in finding that some persons entitled to the GFE received an advantage compared to the situation without applying the GFE.
6.Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state adequate reasons and has made a manifest error of assessment in concluding that a ‘CFC charge’ that is levied on genuinely established EU companies is compliant with the EU principle of freedom of establishment.